Alternative history: 2012 championship without misfortune

Maybe the disclaimer next time should just read: if you don't think this is interesting, or can not fathom why others might find this post interesting, feel free to not read this.

Are we not allowed to discuss whether your analysis, even if interesting, has any logical flaws?

In your opening post you state that you want to put things a little into perspective, by presenting how the championship standings would have looked like if the drivers hadn't suffered misfortune. The point is, the term 'misfortune' isn't absolute. One driver may suffer misfortune in one form, like getting an unreliable car, the other in another, like getting a slower car. At the end of the day both are unlucky, aren't they?

You factor for just some forms of misfortune while ignore the others, so my objection is it's a little bit dishonest to paint your analysis in the absolute way you did. What you've presented us is not an alternative championship 'without misfortune', it's an alternative championship without specific forms of misfortune you've decided to factor in. A subtle difference but a very important one which needs to be pointed out. It's not nitpicking from me here, just trying to put things even more into perspective.

Are we not allowed to discuss whether your analysis, even if interesting, has any logical flaws?

In your opening post you state that you want to put things a little into perspective, by presenting how the championship standings would have looked like if the drivers hadn't suffered misfortune. The point is, the term 'misfortune' isn't absolute. One driver may suffer misfortune in one form, like getting an unreliable car, the other in another, like getting a slower car. At the end of the day both are unlucky, aren't they?

You factor for just some forms of misfortune while ignore the others, so my objection is it's a little bit dishonest to paint your analysis in the absolute way you did. What you've presented us is not an alternative championship 'without misfortune', it's an alternative championship without specific forms of misfortune you've decided to factor in. A subtle difference but a very important one which needs to be pointed out. It's not nitpicking from me here, just trying to put things even more into perspective.

You may of course discuss it, but unless you provide an alternative -most importantly with the scenario's- I don't really see the added value in just complaining. But that's just what I think.

Don't forget to take into account Q-problems (bar underfuelling, which is on purpose for pole).
In Spain, Schumachers DRS didn't open, giving him a bad start position and in fact got him in harms way. Monaco would have been a pole without penalty. No one knows if his fuel pump was damaged due to the Grosjean shunt or that his car would fail anyway.
Hamilton's Pole in Spain was part his own doing, he had the choice to pit in his outlap or his pole lap, but they didn't. Same for Vettel.

Don't forget to take into account Q-problems (bar underfuelling, which is on purpose for pole).In Spain, Schumachers DRS didn't open, giving him a bad start position and in fact got him in harms way. Monaco would have been a pole without penalty. No one knows if his fuel pump was damaged due to the Grosjean shunt or that his car would fail anyway.Hamilton's Pole in Spain was part his own doing, he had the choice to pit in his outlap or his pole lap, but they didn't. Same for Vettel.

I'm bound to forget some things. Next time I'll release version 0.9 with crowdsourcing .Though two things:- Schumi started 8th (9 places ahead of Senna) in Spain after choosing not to set a Q3 time.- Vettel had a fuel pump issue.

Its really not surprising to anyone who watched 2012 season carefully to see Lewis on top of such calculation.
Australia SC was just minor reminder what was to come next. Somehow dubious pitstops that left him behind Alonso, Perez and Button in Malayisa were followed by gear box penalty in China, pitstop disaster in Bahrain and fuel gate in Spain.

First proper weekend Lewis enjoyed in Monaco. In 4 races from Monaco to Silverstone 3 went without any drama, but coincidentally these were races where Jenson wasnt able to qualify in top 10 and McLaren suffered biggest slump in form for the whole year. Once Mclaren came back bang - he had bad strategy for Q3 and shit luck in race in Germany.

McLaren had best car in 8 races (RBR in 5, Mercedes in 2, Lotus in 2, Ferrari in 1 and Sauber in 1 with Germany undecided between Ferrai, RBR and Mclaren) and Lewis unlike Button made proper use of it but total reliability was shocker.

You may of course discuss it, but unless you provide an alternative -most importantly with the scenario's- I don't really see the added value in just complaining. But that's just what I think.

I'm not just complaining, you certainly put a lot of effort into the opening post and I appreciate that. In general, I'm not against any intellectual exercises in the form of alternative history per se. Actually, I often like them but this one from you is heavily flawed in its fundamentals and without a precise description of what the list really tells us it's quite misleading in its conclusions suggesting that Driver X was 'lucky' this season while Driver Y was 'unlucky', because as explained the opposite could actually be easily argued if only one interprets 'misfortune' differently to you. I don't really have to provide any alternative calculations to prove this.

Actually, not so clearly. I still don't know the reason of why you don't consider bad luck having a slow car in the no testing era, apart from "it's not".

Anyway, I do get the purpose of this, don't worry

Simply because - one wouldn't know a SLOW car if it hits us in the face.

"Slow Car" is an immeasurable construct at best and an excuse at worst. How do you know that a certain car was slow? By how much? and why was it slow (was it due to pandering to a certain drivers style?) . We simply wouldn't know how slow the car wlll look in another drivers hands.

Moreover, OP has set out clearly that he does not (in fact he scientifically CANNOT) take into account subjectivity like that and went on to provide quite a comprehensive analysis of all avoidable situations (outside driver control) - but you still hound him because it doesnt portray your driver in the light you want to see.

I say it actually even pays tribute to Alonso who is always in a position to gain from others' setbacks. Thats no mean feat to be always the beneficiary - its not lucky if it keeps happening to the same guy. Alonso must be doing something right. Take it like a compliment.

Brazil, for example, no mention of Hamilton's good luck with the SC, surely he would have been 3rd luck adjusted. The whole post is full of such omissions.

I also think that is a mistake in the opening post. Without misfortune, Hulk/Button would likely have won the race, because they had quite a gap before the SC. You probably should take this into account, since SCs are also mentioned elsewhere. (Alternatively, SCs should not be considered at all.)

Probably crowd-sourcing such a thing or have some good way of collecting feedback is not a bad idea. Quite a few incidents are subjective anyway, but that could reduce the number of omissions.

Anyways, good work. It gives some interesting insights to this years WDC. I hope you will update it based on feedback.

Great post, the only season I've done this for in detail was 2003 which went Montoya, Raikkonnen, Schumacher (which correlates to your list) so I do believe you are mad enough to have done all seasons listed

Out of interest, where did you put Alesi in 95? he lost a a few potential wins through terrible reliability that year.

I also think that is a mistake in the opening post. Without misfortune, Hulk/Button would likely have won the race, because they had quite a gap before the SC. You probably should take this into account, since SCs are also mentioned elsewhere. (Alternatively, SCs should not be considered at all.)

Probably crowd-sourcing such a thing or have some good way of collecting feedback is not a bad idea. Quite a few incidents are subjective anyway, but that could reduce the number of omissions.

Anyways, good work. It gives some interesting insights to this years WDC. I hope you will update it based on feedback.

The problem with that line of thinking is - then you have to consider all SCs as misfortunes and the OP hasnt done that for all other races.

It isnt about eliminating all and any incidents but just correcting the score for the driver who was affected by the incident when it clearly wasnt his fault.

A very nice read as a first post. Of course I disagree with some but it certainly shows intellectual honesty and consistency. Obviously it is impossible to get a big consenus on alternative history given that we have none here about that non-alternative history but it is by far the best try I have seen.

All in all I just have to repeat myself and wonder how McLaren did not walk away from this season with the WDC, WCC and one of the best driver combinations intact...

Simply because - one wouldn't know a SLOW car if it hits us in the face.

"Slow Car" is an immeasurable construct at best and an excuse at worst. How do you know that a certain car was slow? By how much? and why was it slow (was it due to pandering to a certain drivers style?) . We simply wouldn't know how slow the car wlll look in another drivers hands.

Moreover, OP has set out clearly that he does not (in fact he scientifically CANNOT) take into account subjectivity like that and went on to provide quite a comprehensive analysis of all avoidable situations (outside driver control) - but you still hound him because it doesnt portray your driver in the light you want to see.

I say it actually even pays tribute to Alonso who is always in a position to gain from others' setbacks. Thats no mean feat to be always the beneficiary - its not lucky if it keeps happening to the same guy. Alonso must be doing something right. Take it like a compliment.

So, basically, what this analysis does is enhance Newey-car drivers, since they tend to be the quickest cars, at the cost of reliability.

Also, you don't drive the same if you have a dominant car than if you have not, because the latter will make you do more mistakes, strengthening even more the previous sentence.

And I say again, how do you know which cases of reliability are not self-inflicted? I give you two examples:

It emerged later that McLaren had warned Raikkonen not to use the Imola kerbs too aggressively, but that advice had not been heeded. Team mate Wurz brought the car home third.

Rene Speksnijder: We learned that you are a bit more harsh on the engine then Romain. In which way does that affect the car? Furthermore, how do you like the engine to pick-up regarding your use of the throttle?KR: I have driven the car and used the throttle in the same way all my career. Every driver has his own style of going fast. This is mine. It is maybe a bit harsh, but it remains within the scope of what the Renault engine can take.

So, because of all this, the OP says:

It's purpose is to give an overview of what happened, not to ignite another debate on 'the best driver'.

And that's why I put that big disclaimer in there.If you are not interested, or are not open to a different view, there is no one forcing you to read this.I have not written this for the likes of you, but for those that are genuinely interested in what happened.

From me Mnmracer i know your a vettel fan and for him to win but you post this as hamilton winning it shows your a well respected and level headed forumner, ignore those that get funny with you. Well reasoned list.

Two more issues worth mentioning for Hamilton: (1) A botched pit stop in Malaysia putting him behind Alonso (the eventual race winner) when he should have been in front of him. (2) Carrying a suspension issue for most of the Suzuka weekend meaning he barely made the top ten in qualifying while Button put the car third on Saturday.

Still, it certainly gives an indication of just how blighted Hamilton's season has been by things outside his control. One can argue the magnitude but not the trend. Some people will try to trivialise your assessment because they don't like its conclusion, but that an F1 fan who is completely indifferent towards Hamilton believes he lost a net 152 points compared to his rivals should give them pause for thought.

I'm happy for people to say things like "Sebastian Vettel is the 2012 world champion and Fernando Alonso was his closest challenger" because those are facts and they are undeniable. What I won't put up with is people drawing conclusions about driver performance solely from those facts.

"I'm happy for people to say things like "Sebastian Vettel is the 2012 world champion and Fernando Alonso was his closest challenger" because those are facts and they are undeniable. What I won't put up with is people drawing conclusions about driver performance solely from those facts."

Well, since there aren't any other facts to build a conclusion on it's only up to anyone to have an opinion, but that's what it is, an opinion.

We will never know what could have happened by throwing some parameters at a list of events and draw a conclusion from that, it's like creating statistics, you can show whatever you want, it won't be true anyway, but if it makes you more happy so whatever ;-)

I see your point but I will disagree right away at the first sentence where you assume that Newey car was the fastest and most fragile. It was McLaren which had those two properties.

Next I will raise a rhetorical question - that if we go by your logic then why do we consider HRT drivers as poor at all? They have the slowest of cars and yet no one makes amends when appraising them. For a team like Ferrari (biggest budget) there is no excuse that the car is not competetive but thats OT.

The debate about Speed vs Reliability is fraught with risks but you dont have to strech too much see how an unreliable car is worse than a slow but steady car when fighting for a title. A lost win is worth 25 points and to claw back that deficit it takes 2-3 races ( approx 10 points each race) if your rival keeps finishing on podiums which the Ferraris / RBRs always did. So 3 retirements in a season basically means you have to win 9 races to claw back the deficit. Thats half a season you are consistently winning but yet only able to draw level even with the fastest car. In my mind a car which is unreliable rarely wins titles. 2010 and 2012 (RB8 can be considered a bit unreliable) are rare exceptions.

In Ham's case , it simply proves to be true. No matter what he did , he cant win in that car. Kimi and Alonso s seasons go on to prove how a slow but always finishing car will score over an unreliable car and a mistake prone team

Lastly - this list is a theoritical exercise - no one is depriving Vettel of is title or Alonso of his great second place. This list simply cant account for what you call "slow car" because first - its not possible to quantify and second this list's objectives do not allow it. The objective is to analyse and eliminate incidents and construct an alternative outcome.

You are welcome to start another alternative history thread where you take into account the relative speeds (if you can in any practical way) .

PS : Actually I am already thinking on how we can go about that. Might start one myself

I see your point but I will disagree right away at the first sentence where you assume that Newey car was the fastest and most fragile. It was McLaren which had those two properties.

Next I will raise a rhetorical question - that if we go by your logic then why do we consider HRT drivers as poor at all? They have the slowest of cars and yet no one makes amends when appraising them. For a team like Ferrari (biggest budget) there is no excuse that the car is not competetive but thats OT.

The debate about Speed vs Reliability is fraught with risks but you dont have to strech too much see how an unreliable car is worse than a slow but steady car when fighting for a title. A lost win is worth 25 points and to claw back that deficit it takes 2-3 races ( approx 10 points each race) if your rival keeps finishing on podiums which the Ferraris / RBRs always did. So 3 retirements in a season basically means you have to win 9 races to claw back the deficit. Thats half a season you are consistently winning but yet only able to draw level even with the fastest car. In my mind a car which is unreliable rarely wins titles. 2010 and 2012 (RB8 can be considered a bit unreliable) are rare exceptions.

In Ham's case , it simply proves to be true. No matter what he did , he cant win in that car. Kimi and Alonso s seasons go on to prove how a slow but always finishing car will score over an unreliable car and a mistake prone team

Lastly - this list is a theoritical exercise - no one is depriving Vettel of is title or Alonso of his great second place. This list simply cant account for what you call "slow car" because first - its not possible to quantify and second this list's objectives do not allow it. The objective is to analyse and eliminate incidents and construct an alternative outcome.

You are welcome to start another alternative history thread where you take into account the relative speeds (if you can in any practical way) .

PS : Actually I am already thinking on how we can go about that. Might start one myself

Good post. The OP stakes out the parameters, which are sensible and goes on to reconstruct the season with those in mind. If somebody disagrees with those he can say so and can also make a thread with a set of his own.

Thanks for the analysis, only just read it.
Like some have highlighted you missed some events that would have given Hamilton more points, Kvothe knows some of them too.

But it doesn't really matter because I'm not taking the points as gospel but instead it gives me a ball park image of exactly how McLaren ruined Hamilton's season and why on paper Button looked so close (2 pts) when he wasn't on the same piece of tarmac in the races.

* Lewis Hamilton lost a net 152 points due to mechanical failures and other misfortune.
* Jenson Button lost a net 9 points due to mechanical failures and other misfortune from his other competitors.

Kudos for the effort!I'm not a fan of "what if" speculations but you've tried at great lengths to present your findings in an objective manner.There are a few conclusions I find rather doubtful:

[Malaysian Grand Prix- Kimi Räikkönen received a 5 place grid penalty for changing his gearbox, setting him back to p10, which moved up Vettel, Grosjean, Rosberg and Alonso. Considering his race pace though, he would have probably not finished ahead of Webber, who qualified ahead, anyway.

His race pace at the end though was very strong - he set fastest lap! He just went to slicks a bit too late, and that determined his result as well. He was even ahead of Webber before his last pitstop! Saying that Webber qualified ahead anyway is not in argument in this case. Just look at the outcome with Alonso and Perez - not the fastest qualifyers by any means - finishing 1st nd 2nd.

Chinese Grand Prix- Lewis Hamilton was given a 5-place grid penalty for a gearbox change. Although Rosberg looked too strong for anyone this weekend, Hamilton would have probably taken second.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. In this specific race Jenson was simply faster all through the race and lost many valuable seconds by a botched 9.7 second pitstop! See also your comments about Hamilton losing places by botched pitstops in other races.

Spanish Grand Prix- Underfueling Hamilton in Q3, we can assume, was not done on purpose, yet had grave consequences. Bad luck, so we put him back on pole. Judging his race pace if on pole is tricky, as his race pace from the back would not have won him the race. All throughout qualifying though, his pace was such that a win would be likely.

There's no way we can tell anything sensible about his possible race pace. Q doesn't say everything about tyre management during the race. His pace on softs -of course dictated by strategy- was nothing to write home about. A possible win is simply pure speculation.

Belgian Grand Prix- The start crash caused by Grosjean also meant the end of the race for Alonso, Hamilton and Perez.- Judging where Alonso and Perez would have ended up is tricky, but judging by their team-mates, it looked like the Ferrari had much better race pace than the Sauber.

There no sensible conclusion you can make about the Sauber's pace if you judge it by Kamui's performance. His car was almost mortally wounded and it was a miracle that it survived at all! I think both Saubers could have ended up pretty high if not punted.

Kudos for the effort!I'm not a fan of "what if" speculations but you've tried at great lengths to present your findings in an objective manner.There are a few conclusions I find rather doubtful:

His race pace at the end though was very strong - he set fastest lap! He just went to slicks a bit too late, and that determined his result as well. He was even ahead of Webber before his last pitstop! Saying that Webber qualified ahead anyway is not in argument in this case. Just look at the outcome with Alonso and Perez - not the fastest qualifyers by any means - finishing 1st nd 2nd.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. In this specific race Jenson was simply faster all through the race and lost many valuable seconds by a botched 9.7 second pitstop! See also your comments about Hamilton losing places by botched pitstops in other races.

There's no way we can tell anything sensible about his possible race pace. Q doesn't say everything about tyre management during the race. His pace on softs -of course dictated by strategy- was nothing to write home about. A possible win is simply pure speculation.

There no sensible conclusion you can make about the Sauber's pace if you judge it by Kamui's performance. His car was almost mortally wounded and it was a miracle that it survived at all! I think both Saubers could have ended up pretty high if not punted.

He finished 8th from 24th with one less stop. While Alonso and Maldonado had great race pace, I think it's not too farfetched to give it to Lewis, especially considering he blitzed the field by over 0.5 sec.

"I'm happy for people to say things like "Sebastian Vettel is the 2012 world champion and Fernando Alonso was his closest challenger" because those are facts and they are undeniable. What I won't put up with is people drawing conclusions about driver performance solely from those facts."

Well, since there aren't any other facts to build a conclusion on it's only up to anyone to have an opinion, but that's what it is, an opinion.

We will never know what could have happened by throwing some parameters at a list of events and draw a conclusion from that, it's like creating statistics, you can show whatever you want, it won't be true anyway, but if it makes you more happy so whatever ;-)

I've only just seen this.

So the points table is the only "fact" in F1?

I have another one. Hamilton retired from the lead of three grand prix and was sent to the back from pole in another. That is a fact.

This sort of thread can never be conclusive, but as I said in my previous post it shows a trend.

Surely 1985 must be Michele Alboreto? Although I was very young, I saw all races apart from Kyalami that year and I assure you that Alboreto was a very long time title favourite, even leading the championship, until he had a large numer of races with technical issues / bad luck.

I also disagree about 1987, Piquet won it more than deserved and was clearly the best driver that year, same about Senna in 1988.

He finished 8th from 24th with one less stop. While Alonso and Maldonado had great race pace, I think it's not too farfetched to give it to Lewis, especially considering he blitzed the field by over 0.5 sec.

He blitzed the field by almost the same gap in Hungarian GP qualifying and could have been well beaten by both Lotus cars in the race if there was a better possibility to overtake at Hungaroring.

Maldonado's Q3 lap in Barcelona was far from being ideal, almost 2 tenths slower than in Q2. There is why such gap was created.

Hamilton also qualified 2nd in Valencia but was fading away toward the end of the race (not coincidentally at the cost of Alonso, Raikkonen and Maldonado, the same drivers who excelled with tyres over race distance also in Barcelona).

His race pace in Barcelona, while actually affected by traffic and 2 stop strategy, was no way a match for Maldonado. He failed to set better time than Pastor during any single lap in that race. It could have been a different story if he started from pole. But could is the key word. We can't assume it would have been different. While you don't expect a 2 stopper to lap quicker than 3 stopper for majority of the race, the fact that he couldn't lap quicker during any single lap suggests he didn't necessarily have the race pace to win. If you look at lap times from races, you will see it's a rare thing being unable to set a single quicker lap time than other driver throughout the whole race. Even if you are on slower (less pit stops) strategy. For instance Perez in Australia, despite 1 stop strategy, had some quicker head-to-head laps during the race than Button, Hamilton, Vettel etc. Hamilton had no such laps compared to Maldonado in Barcelona.

He blitzed the field by almost the same gap in Hungarian GP qualifying and could have been well beaten by both Lotus cars in the race if there was a better possibility to overtake at Hungaroring.

Maldonado's Q3 lap in Barcelona was far from being ideal, almost 2 tenths slower than in Q2. There is why such gap was created.

Hamilton also qualified 2nd in Valencia but was fading away toward the end of the race (not coincidentally at the cost of Alonso, Raikkonen and Maldonado, the same drivers who excelled with tyres over race distance also in Barcelona).

His race pace in Barcelona, while actually affected by traffic and 2 stop strategy, was no way a match for Maldonado.

Exactly. But there were none, and Lewis said that he was managing the gap and his tyres because he knew Kimi/Romain couldn't pass him.

How do you know Pastor's lap was far from ideal? What about track condition as well? Poor outlap?

What happened in Valencia has nothing to do with what happened in Barcelona - way, way different tracks and different temperatures. I get what you are saying, but you are using the wrong examples.

Well, no sh*t Sherlock! His pace was affected by 1) his starting position, 2) different strategy and 3) traffic. This is huge.

Exactly. But there were none, and Lewis said that he was managing the gap and his tyres because he knew Kimi/Romain couldn't pass him.

How do you know Pastor's lap was far from ideal? What about track condition as well? Poor outlap?

What happened in Valencia has nothing to do with what happened in Barcelona - way, way different tracks and different temperatures. I get what you are saying, but you are using the wrong examples.

Well, no sh*t Sherlock! His pace was affected by 1) his starting position, 2) different strategy and 3) traffic. This is huge.

Lewis had NO chance. Ferrari, Williams and Lotus had better race pace. If Lewis had better or equal pace than them he would have got a better position in the end, as the top 3 -and Romain from time to time- were on a different planet to the rest. If Lewis had a car to match these 3/4 guys, he would have been 5th hands down. As the previous poster said it would have probaby been another Valencia kind of race, with much better one lap pace than race pace from McLaren.

Exactly. But there were none, and Lewis said that he was managing the gap and his tyres because he knew Kimi/Romain couldn't pass him.

Yeah. Lewis beat Kimi by 8 tenths in quali, yet Kimi was able to sit a 1 second behind Lewis during in the last 25 laps of the race. Are you trying to suggest Lewis was so confident that he weren't going to be overtaken that he slowed down so much in purpose in order to manage his tyres and risk having the driver behind him in DRS zone which caused every little mistake could end up with the loss of the lead in the race? I don't get it.Do you actually claim that Kimi hadn't at least as good pace as Lewis that race? Don't forget Kimi was affected by lower grid position and traffic. And the difference in quali was even bigger than in Barcelona.

How do you know Pastor's lap was far from ideal? What about track condition as well? Poor outlap?

Apart from Rosberg he was the only one who didn't improve his Q2 time in Q3. That alone shows it was not ideal lap. Not to mention the fact that you could see he had a big moment in the last corner, opened DRS too early, lost the grip and some time and almost crashed.

What happened in Valencia has nothing to do with what happened in Barcelona - way, way different tracks and different temperatures. I get what you are saying, but you are using the wrong examples.

The example is right. It shows that if the qualifying pace is there, it doesn't mean that the race pace also will. More simillarities are not needed.

Well, no sh*t Sherlock! His pace was affected by 1) his starting position, 2) different strategy and 3) traffic. This is huge.

So was affected Perez' pace in Australia. He was affected even more, because the difference between 1 and 2 stops is bigger than between 2 and 3. And Perez rather didn't have a race winning car there. Still his pace looked better compared to front-runners, than Hamilton's pace in Barcelona.

Prost had three reliability failure that year compared to only one for Senna.

Both of Prost's DNF's in Silverstone and Monza were car-related, likewise his gearbox issues in Suzuka.Meanwhile, Senna's retirements in Monaco and Monza were collisions, his own fault. Only Interlagos could be blamed on the car for Senna.

Prost also out-scored Senna that season by 105 to 94, but was only counted back because of the best-eleven rule.

Prost had three reliability failure that year compared to only one for Senna.

Both of Prost's DNF's in Silverstone and Monza were car-related, likewise his gearbox issues in Suzuka.Meanwhile, Senna's retirements in Monaco and Monza were collisions, his own fault. Only Interlagos could be blamed on the car for Senna.

Prost also out-scored Senna that season by 105 to 94, but was only counted back because of the best-eleven rule.